View source for Forum:Articles about third-party clients

{{Forumheader|Redwood Grove|name=Articles about third-party clients|subject=Third-party clients|notes=|closure=allow|archive=true|date=22:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)|user=Joeytje50|type=content}}

I'm not sure if there's ever been a proper discussion about this on the wiki so forgive me if there has been, but I was interested in exploring whether it would be useful to have an article, or article(s), on third-party OSRS clients. Personally, I feel like it would be useful in some capacity - especially since the OSRS team stated that [https://secure.runescape.com/m=news/third-party-client-update?oldschool=1 third-party clients by themselves are not against the rules].

Let's be honest, ''RuneLite'' especially is much more popular than the official game client, with a large portion of the active playerbase using it and even Jmods occasionally. The wiki even partners with them now and again, including to provide wiki features within the RuneLite client and also [https://prices.runescape.wiki/osrs/ live Grand Exchange pricing] more recently.

Obviously, the main concern around us covering third-party clients on the wiki is probably "Where do we draw the line? Which third-party clients do we cover? How do we make sure our users know that it's not an official client?"

I have a few different proposals for covering third-party clients on the wiki:

# We create a new page called '''Third-party clients''' or something similar which would contain information on Jagex's stance on them and also name a few (RuneLite/OSB, or just RuneLite) examples with their differences from the official client. We exclude mentioning any client that is not used by a large portion of the active playerbase ([[RS:UCS]]) or any client that contains code/plugins that are against Jagex's rules
# We create a new page for '''RuneLite''' specifically, covering the differences from the official client, and include a big disclaimer at the top of the article that it is not an official client
# Add a new section on [[Game Client]] specifically for information around third-party clients, expanding from the 1-2 lines in the opening prose on that article already

Personally, I'd rather see us take the 1st or 2nd approach rather than bury the information on the article for the official client, but I think I'm happy either way. Obviously, the complete alternative is that we maintain the status quo and avoid all mention of RuneLite and other third-party clients, but this does not seem especially helpful for our readers. People know that RuneLite exists, and that it's (currently) the more superior way to play OSRS. We should make an effort to inform users researching third-party clients, rather than not mention them at all like they're the boogeyman. {{Signatures/JaydenKieran}} 21:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


==Discussion==
'''Comment''' - I'm currently leaning towards the third option, however I have some concerns. I'm not a big fan of naming the clients as this could be seen as favouritism/popularity contest and that's a can of worms that should be left closed. As for listing potential differences, to what extent should this be done? That said, we should definitely have more information about these clients than just the 1-2 lines of the opening prose. {{User:KelseW/Signature}} 11:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
:Do you think limiting it to only clients mentioned in newsposts as allowed by jagex would be a fine cutoff point for "favouritism"? {{User:Crow653/Signature}} 08:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

'''Support 2''' - We have a relationship with RuneLite that allows us to do some of the things we're able to do on the wiki because of it, such as [[RS:CROWD]]. While it could be misunderstood for an advertisement, or something, it's worth noting that RuneLite is the main third-party client for Old School, and one that has been explicitly ''approved'' by Jagex for use. As for other clients, they're either not maintained/updated anymore, or they're questionable in their status of approval or not. I think the page on RuneLite could be as shallow or deep in the content that we want. Perhaps we could even get some of the folks that contribute to RuneLite to help write some of this content. -{{User:Legaia2Pla/Signature}} 16:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

'''Support 1 or 2''' - I think it's good to have an article about the history and background of all officially endorsed third-party clients. My support for '''2''' is therefore also a support for treating OSBuddy the same as RuneLite, and creating an article for both. I think we all know RuneLite is a lot more popular, but I do still want to keep the wiki neutral, and I think it would be favouritism to only have an article about RL without also writing about OSB, which has been officially greenlit by Jagex. I'd say the single criterion for having an article, or a mention on the "Third-party clients" article proposed under '''1''', would be the official stance from Jagex being positive about said client.

I also think OSBuddy has played a very significant role in the history of OSRS, and the way third-party clients have become more popular. Considering they are currently no longer listing the amount of players using OSBuddy ("There are '''many''' OSBuddy users online right now."), I think there's a good chance OSBuddy will only be part of history some time soon. Documenting the role of this client on the wiki seems like a logical move, preserving the history of this very significant part of the game and the game's culture.

I think referring to official Jagex sources would be a very clear criterion to determine whether or not a client deserves an article. 'Hard-coding' RuneLite as the only third-party client we allow an article about, seems to me like a bad idea. {{Signatures/Joeytje50|2}} 15:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
:PS: I do also think we should have a page for AHK's historical significance and the update that made it illegal. If the page clearly indicates that the use of AHK is now illegal, it would still be interesting to list the historical use of this tool (also considering it is already mentioned in a quote on [[Mouse keys]]). {{Signatures/Joeytje50|2}} 13:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

'''Comment''' - Whilst I think a page should be on the clients themselves, it doesn't really address the issue that currently the wiki avoids mentioning anything involving third party plugins. Even cases where it would heavily help (see person right clicking to do 2T Tuna and Swordfish on [[Pay-to-play_Fishing_training#Levels_71–99:_2-tick_harpooning_swordfish/tuna|Pay-to-play_Fishing_training]]), currently they're not mentioned. Regardless of this still unsolved issue, that probably requires it's own forum, I'd be more partial to options '''1 or 2''' rather than bloating Game Client futher (beyond adding links to this new page) {{User:Luna Lana/Signature}} 21:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

'''Support 1 or 2''' - Could go for dedicated articles or a single article for both osbuddy and runelite, both are mentioned in an official newspost as being allowed, although osbuddy is obviously a dead client at this point. Many of the features have crossover so a single article could work, that's why I don't really have any preference towards either option, although I do think both clients should be covered. {{User:Crow653/Signature}} 08:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

'''Support 1''' - I think if we want to have an article on Runelite, we should include all third party clients that Jagex has a positive stance towards. Only including Runelite seems to just be asking for trouble from whatever few OSBuddy users are left, and including OSBuddy better justifies the exclusion of other non-approved clients. Ultimately, I don't think it's a good look for the wiki to include only one of the two approved third party clients. With whatever approach is taken, I do have a concern about creating a page or pages about third party clients. What should be done if a client ever loses its approval from Jagex? I would not be surprised if at some point this happens to OSBuddy. Should information about the client be removed, or would it be grandfathered in due to its past acceptance? --[[User:Omnes Ferant|Omnes Ferant]] ([[User talk:Omnes Ferant|talk]]) 13:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
:If we mention RL and OSB, what argument would this give people trying to add "other non-approved clients"? Also, clients that lose support would probably keep their page, but only list the officially endorsed parts of the client. If they lose their endorsement due to illegal plugins, for example, we would just put a notice on the page that the tool is no longer endorsed by jagex, but the page is kept for historical purposes. The same could probably be said about a potential article for AHK, which used to be okay, but was officially made illegal after an announcement by Jagex.{{Signatures/Joeytje50|2}} 13:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
::You make a good point with the reference to AHK. Keeping articles would probably be for the best. Regarding non-approved clients, my thinking is that only including Runelite seems like a rather arbitrary decision. Yes one could argue that OSBuddy isn't used by enough players, but that doesn't feel like a very strong justification, given all of the other extremely niche content the wiki documents, and I think there could be reasonable disagreement over what constitutes a large portion of the playerbase. Including OSBuddy makes it easier to have a single consistent rule we can point to whenever someone tries to add something on non-approved third part clients. --[[User:Omnes Ferant|Omnes Ferant]] ([[User talk:Omnes Ferant|talk]]) 14:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

'''Pages for all clients that have been mentioned explicitly in newsposts''' - This seems like a pretty straightforward line to draw. It never made sense to me that we considered these to be taboo topics even after they'd been discussed in newsposts. {{Signatures/Cook Me Plox}} 07:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

'''Closed''' - There is a consensus to create individual pages for the different clients that have officially been endorsed by Jagex in official posts. If an official endorsement of any client or tool ever gets retracted by Jagex, the page can be kept as a historical source of information about the client, but it should be made abundantly clear that it's there just for that reason, and that the tool is no longer officially endorsed. {{Signatures/Joeytje50|2}} 22:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)